The "Problem" of Unexperienced Rocks

Radical constructivism criticizes realism for its insistence on the existence of an unexperienced world. To the radical constructivist, at least as I understand it, the unexperienced rock, say on the bottom of the ocean, or the moon, is not relevant to our understanding of the world.

I would like to challenge that. Let us explore the concept of this unexperienced rock. Just because we have not experienced the rocks, say, on the moon, does not mean that we lack the POTENTIAL to experience them. If we act upon this potential, then this rock becomes part of our experience. It seems to me rather absurd to reject those objects which can potentially be experienced merely on the grounds that we have not yet experienced them.

I propose the following syllogism:

1) All rocks that are relevant to our understanding are those objects we have experienced.
2) All rocks must first have the potential to be experienced before they can be experienced.
3) Potential for experience remains unchanged regardless of whether that potential is acted upon.
4) All rocks that we have experienced can be potentially experienced.
5) All rocks must have the potential to be experienced.
6) Therefore, all rocks, both experienced and unexperienced (or, put another way, potentially, but not yet experienced) are relevant to our understanding of the concept of "rock."

Given this, it would be quite relevant that there is an unexperienced world, which calls in to question the metaphysical agnosticism the radical constructivist so clings to.

To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist respond to the syllogism above?